Ace-Garageguy Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Why should I see your point if you refuse to acknowledge anyone else's? You are too afraid to consider other's ideas because in your mind if you submit then you will be seen as weak, your a class A example (And a raging one at that) of an "Alpha Male" who will do anything to remain on the top of the heap. Fell free to continue vigorously mashing in keys in a fit of rage so that you don't lose any dominance in your little utopia, I honestly can't wait for the day it all sets in that you've wasted hours of your life trying to change peoples minds for them over a model kit. No Austin, not over a model kit. Over a philosophy of life that values excellence, effort and passion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blunc Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 wow, it's another episode of: "I just want to build for myself and have fun - VS - I just want to build for myself and have fun...and make it as much like a real car as I can." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High octane Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Stay tuned for scenes from our next weeks show. Hmmmmm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 wow, it's another episode of: "I just want to build for myself and have fun - VS - I just want to build for myself and have fun...and make it as much like a real car as I can." Wow. I do love the way you put that. Though i gotta point out that the former party imposes its arbitrary value judgments on the latter far more frequently than vice-versa. Just have a look at some of the push-the-buttons-then-point-the-finger methods directly above... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berr13 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 popcorn sure makes you thirsty, doesn't it? Be right back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledsel Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Okay.... I must speak up one more time even though I said I was keeping quiet. This all started cuz of me. I mentioned I was looking forward to this kit, but hoped they corrected the issues because I was very unhappy with the Custom. Then I was asked what the problems with the kit were and I pointed them out. Some others were also pointed out that did not stand out or I did not know about. This opened a can of worms and I definitely caused some problems. Sorry I gave any input at all. I do not get a lot of "build time" and do not want to spend what I do have correcting obvious flaws. Even though my time is limited, I try to build the best kit I can. With the 57 Ford (and 49 Merc) being my all time favorite cars, I was disappointed to say the least. How is it the 30, 40, 50 year old re-issues can look so good and accurate (not without flaws) and todays stuff can have so many issues? Technology is better now and therefore the kit should be even better, or so you would think. It is the "good enough" mentality that gave us these. Their thought was, "it is good enough that they will buy it." Now, these are not the only kits with flaws, there are others and the kit manufacturers have actually listened and corrected, attempted to correct or at least made them more tolerable. Is it wrong for me to not want to spend on a kit I see problems with? No, just like it is not wrong for someone else to accept it. The overall kit is nice, but the main part, the body, has issues. I cannot apologize for that, it is true. On a last note..... Austin T, that gasser looks really nice. The fender was trimmed where is should be, and the radiused wheel wells hide most of the rear quarter problem. If I build one, yours will be the inspiration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 And that's where I have to disagree with you, Andy. Am I less unhappy with the 300's problems than you are? Yes. But I'm not such a hard-core fan of the '57 Ford, and by my reckoning, i saw fewer deviations on this kit than I did on any other vintage subject Revell kitted in 2012 - even the '50 Olds, the foibles of which I got very familiar with as I went through a review and then a conversion of it. And I continue in my assessment of this as probably Revell's closest of that year's releases. But I have no problem with your dissatisfaction with the kit. You mentioned some hard facts to justify it. It is the people who could not deal with your observations who really caused the problems in this thread, and that's the pattern that repeats itself over and over again. We now have this as an example to pile on top of the three I referenced earlier and quite a few more I haven't. How much sarcasm did you engage in? Or name-calling? That garbage didn't start with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin T Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 No Austin, not over a model kit. Over a philosophy of life that values excellence, effort and passion. Then why are you talking about them in a thread about a model kit. Your just trying to dodge around the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danno Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Dodge? You mean it was all Chrysler's fault? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledsel Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Thank you Chuck, but I did start the snowball... I do see where people like the kit, and other kits I do miss the imperfections. I do not get all wired up about it, I decide if I can live with them or not when pointed out to me. It was such a let down for me because I do have a passion for the particular car (and the Merc) I did write to Revell and let them know how I felt. I even sent pics of the kit flaws versus the actual car. I was in now way negative, and was offering constructive criticism. I believe they listened and understood that because we had more than a one correspondence to each other. I mentioned b4, I am not here to piss on any ones Cheerios, but to learn.... if that means learning there is a flaw, fine... thank you for enlightening me. I'll decide what I want then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blunc Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Dodge? You mean it was all Chrysler's fault? that may depend on the vintage... and before you get started on Depends, well...just don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddyfink Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Grown men are arguing over how correct a model is, plastic toy, that is not even out yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 So about that "toy" angle now: anybody wanna regard scale models as toys, there's nobody to stop you. There's even a certain logic to it - if a yacht or a restored P-51 or a Lamborghini count as "toys", models certainly don't escape the purview in that context. Nothing wrong with that opinion in and of itself. What IS wrong is to use that opinion as a basis to judge how seriously everybody else should take their models, and make that grounds for everything from the same old tired, unjustfied condescension to bleating about how members should be banned and threads should be closed 'cause the discussion isn't going the way you think it should be. As ever, we got people who essentially prompt the squabbling and then make such ostentatious displays of how TIIIIIRED THEY ARE of it, and how SOOOO ABOVE IT ALL they are, contributing little but the very drama they criticize to the conversation. So. Just who is it with the maturity problems again? Some of us can't help it yet, getting a little worked up at being cornered with the same old lame-brained long-dismantled approaches over and over and OVER again. These days, I'm kinda just shrugging at it all - the more you all keep it up, the more I can point to a two-year-old blog and have more objective people laughing along, saying "yeah, they really DO all that!" (#4 seems germane, btw) Btw, one las' thang on toys: couple Christmases ago, I couldn't help but note a pretty accurate-looking Fiat 500 as I waited in a toy store line. Made by Mattel. To stuff Barbie dolls in. Yeah, I wouldn't mind at all if model manufacturers could hit proportions as well as that particular TOY manufacturer did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Grown men are arguing over how correct a model is, plastic toy, that is not even out yet? Sorry, they are not "toys". That is another can of worms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace-Garageguy Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 This all started cuz of me. I had an unfortunate hand in running this thread off the rails too...by simply asking Sledsel, as he has first-hand in-the-garage knowledge of the '57 Ford, just exactly what the body flaws were...cause I like the kit and it looked pretty good to me during my first cursory inspections. He answered fully and I thought that was done. Then the rivet-counter perfect-kit good-enuf business started and I just couldn't hold my tongue about the fact that, toys or not, to the folks who manufacture them it's a job, and it ought to get done right. I sincerely apologize if some of you found that comment and my opinion regarding quality offensive. Notice, I didn't apologize for the comment or the opinion. I'm just sorry some of you think that being expected to do a good job on something manufactured for sale is asking too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbwelda Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 right. defend juvenile drivel like that dog catcher rod or anything from, say, Tom Daniel, and then try to argue they aren't "toys". you ain't winning that argument with any wives, I can promise you that. and when dimensions don't mimic reality, they are treading a fine fine line too. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddyfink Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Well, I just proved that most folks around here will argue about anything, which almost makes most of this thread rather invalid. I say "Toy" and some pounce on it. Glad to see that shiny objects can still easily distract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 You're actually proving so much more, Jesse, that I feel compelled to stop and THANK YOU for it. So there's nothing at all argumentative about putting up a "tsk tsk" gif, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Geiger Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Btw, one las' thang on toys: couple Christmases ago, I couldn't help but note a pretty accurate-looking Fiat 500 as I waited in a toy store line. Made by Mattel. To stuff Barbie dolls in. Yeah, I wouldn't mind at all if model manufacturers could hit proportions as well as that particular TOY manufacturer did. An apples and oranges comparison... with US manufacturer model car kits, there is a very finite market. I doubt they will sell 25,000 units of a new kit, so the design and production has to fit into that budget. Your Barbie car on the other hand will probably sell a million units around the world as a Barbie brand toy. The development budget for that product is no doubt huge next to the model car business. Another thing is that you glanced at that Barbie Fiat quickly and it "looked good". You didn't get out the photos and engineering scale to pick it apart. Most new release model kits "look good", it's when the engineering tools come out that there are issues. And we did get a Barbie Fiat 500 for our girls... and Ted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace-Garageguy Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) Post deleted, no point stirring it up any more. It's all good (enuf). Edited March 13, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclescott58 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I still like my Revell '57 Ford Custom two-door sedan. And, I'm really looking forward to their Del Rio Ranch Wagon version. I'm going to stir up the pot by stating that I've alway like the '57 Ford much better than the '57 Chev. I'm glad these cars are finally getting their due. And I hope that Revell will grace us with a '57 Ranchero, based on this tooling, down the road. I'll be buying it too, if they do. Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) An apples and oranges comparison... with US manufacturer model car kits, there is a very finite market. I doubt they will sell 25,000 units of a new kit, so the design and production has to fit into that budget. Your Barbie car on the other hand will probably sell a million units around the world as a Barbie brand toy. The development budget for that product is no doubt huge next to the model car business. Another thing is that you glanced at that Barbie Fiat quickly and it "looked good". You didn't get out the photos and engineering scale to pick it apart. Most new release model kits "look good", it's when the engineering tools come out that there are issues. And we did get a Barbie Fiat 500 for our girls... and Ted Well. By "looking good", I meant mostly that there wasn't any screamingly obvious 2-inch chop, headlight-housings-out-to-the-moon, hacked-off rear quarters, bulbous upper fenders or flattened Hapsburg-lip wheel arches. In other words, errors of a sort that do not require "engineering tools" to see, stuff so off that your mere recollection of the 1:1 calls it out, krap-before-calipers-like-it-or-not - though it doesn't seem to suit your purposes to acknowledge problems like those, now, does it, Tom? The kind of logic you rely on really appears to hinge on the premise that A N Y deviation must be off incrementally, so we can just jam it into a "rivet-counting" context no matter how obvious the problem really is. BUT. I was aware of a hazard in my premise, and I may inadvertently answer Bill's (now deleted) question here: it was Mattel that finally cut the scat and went to LIDAR scanning of prototypes, as Airfix is doing now - most notably, the scans that figured into their Batmobile diecast, which Polar Lights ultimately leased to make a kit that was somehow magically free of the gross proportioning issues we see in so many other new tools of vintage subjects. And what's the constant refrain? Maybe Airfix can afford it, certainly Mattel can, but that kind of tech is simply out of the budget for domestic model manufacturers to acquire for themselves just yet. But the Polar Lights/Mattel association is a link that pretty emphatically suggests you examine the fruit with an engineering tool or two before making any arch generalizations about the comparison. Anyway. Kool ride! Edited March 13, 2015 by Chuck Kourouklis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbwelda Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) never mind...the post I was responding to disappeared! jb Edited March 13, 2015 by jbwelda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace-Garageguy Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I still like my Revell '57 Ford Custom two-door sedan. And, I'm really looking forward to their Del Rio Ranch Wagon version. I'm going to stir up the pot by stating that I've alway like the '57 Ford much better than the '57 Chev. I'm glad these cars are finally getting their due. And I hope that Revell will grace us with a '57 Ranchero, based on this tooling, down the road. I'll be buying it too, if they do. Scott I agree 100%. I like the Revell kit. I'll be correcting at least one of mine, but I still like it. A also prefer the styling of the '55-'57 Fords to the Chevs. A '57 convertible is on my top 10 gotta-have-one-before-I-die list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High octane Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I don't have time to "correct" model kits, as I just build them as they come. I don't have an calipers or micrometers or specs, as I build model cars for FUN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts